"No two people see the external world in exactly the same way. To every separate person a thing is what he thinks it is -- in other words, not a thing, but a think." - Penelope Fitzgerald

Oct 26, 2012

The Koch Brothers ARE Waging War On Obama & US Citizens!

Magazine Article Extract: Covert Operations:The billionaire brothers who are waging a war against Obama.In Washington, Koch is best known as part of a family that has repeatedly funded stealth attacks on the federal government, and on the Obama Administration in particular.With his brother Charles, who is seventy-four, David Koch owns virtually all of Koch Industries, a conglomerate, headquartered in Wichita, Kansas, whose annual revenues are estimated to be a hundred billion dollars. The company has grown spectacularly since their father, Fred, died, in 1967, and the brothers took charge. The Kochs operate oil refineries in Alaska, Texas, and Minnesota, and control some four thousand miles of pipeline. Koch Industries owns Brawny paper towels, Dixie cups, Georgia-Pacific lumber, Stainmaster carpet, and Lycra, among other products. Forbes ranks it as the second-largest private company in the country, after Cargill, and its consistent profitability has made David and Charles Koch—who, years ago, bought out two other brothers—among the richest men in America. Their combined fortune of thirty-five billion dollars is exceeded only by those of Bill Gates and Warren Buffett.

The Kochs are longtime libertarians who believe in drastically lower personal and corporate taxes, minimal social services for the needy, and much less oversight of industry—especially environmental regulation. These views dovetail with the brothers’ corporate interests. In a study released this spring, the University of Massachusetts at Amherst’s Political Economy Research Institute named Koch Industries one of the top ten air polluters in the United States. And Greenpeace issued a report identifying the company as a “kingpin of climate science denial.” The report showed that, from 2005 to 2008, the Kochs vastly outdid ExxonMobil in giving money to organizations fighting legislation related to climate change, underwriting a huge network of foundations, think tanks, and political front groups. Indeed, the brothers have funded opposition campaigns against so many Obama Administration policies—from health-care reform to the economic-stimulus program—that, in political circles, their ideological network is known as the Kochtopus.

In a statement, Koch Industries said that the Greenpeace report “distorts the environmental record of our companies.” And David Koch, in a recent, admiring article about him in New York, protested that the “radical press” had turned his family into “whipping boys,” and had exaggerated its influence on American politics. But Charles Lewis, the founder of the Center for Public Integrity, a nonpartisan watchdog group, said, “The Kochs are on a whole different level. There’s no one else who has spent this much money. The sheer dimension of it is what sets them apart. They have a pattern of lawbreaking, political manipulation, and obfuscation. I’ve been in Washington since Watergate, and I’ve never seen anything like it. They are the Standard Oil of our times.”

An example of some of the activities the Koch Brothers are upto (it includes causing cancer through pollutants and hiding the deaths of US Citizens from the News Media - They are billionaires and ALL of the media is owned by corporations i.e. they have stock on the stock market - see links at the bottom of this post for oil price manipulation tactics - that can be manipulated in various ways)...

The National Toxicology Program, part of the National Institutes of Health, publishes the biannual Report on Carcinogens, which is one of the primary sources of up-to-date public information about chemicals that are known or suspected causes of cancer. The report has been published since 1980, in response to a directive from Congress. But if Rep. Denny Rehberg (R-Mont.) gets his way, soon we might lose this detailed information about the chemicals putting us at risk.Rehberg's proposed Labor, Health and Human Services funding bill for 2013 would eliminate the budget for the Report on Carcinogens (RoC) until the agency follows through with an additional follow up to its 2011 report. (Rehberg's proposal contains a number of highly political cuts, including all funding for President Barack Obama's Affordable Care Act, Planned Parenthood, and family planning.)As a bit of background, the 2011 RoC report listed formaldehyde as a "known carcinogen" and styrene an "anticipated carcinogen" for the first time. This, as one might imagine, caused the industries that use those chemicals to freak out.A few months later, the industry's Republican allies in Congress appended a conference report to the 2012 Consolidated Appropriations Act directing the Health and Human Services to contract with the National Academy of Sciences (NAS) to conduct a review of the RoC's determinations on those two chemicals. As NIH has already affirmed, the Report on Carcinogens is both peer-reviewed itself and drawn from independent, previously peer-reviewed literature.HHS is in the process of contracting with NAS to complete that review, but apparently it's not happening fast enough for Rehberg. He and Rep. Hal Rogers (R-Ky.), chairman of the appropriations committee, wrote a letter to Sec. Kathleen Sebelius earlier this month asking her to expedite the process. A spokesperson for HHS told Mother Jones the agency is "reviewing the letter and will respond in timely manner."Meanwhile the budget bill Rehberg and Rogers drafted for next year would bar the National Toxicology Program from doing any work on the next Report on Carcinogens, due out next year, until 30 days after that NAS report is complete.If included in the final funding bill, this could mean no new RoC report for years to come. NAS reports tend to be long and detailed; a spokesman for NAS told Mother Jones that reports can take anywhere from three months to five years. If the National Toxicological Program has to wait until the NAS evaluation is complete to do anymore work, it would be hard to say when the next RoC would be ready.Delaying the report would make industry groups, who have made it clear they don't like the RoC process very much, happy. Trade groups like the American Chemistry Council argue that the RoC causes "economic consequences, confusion, and unwarranted fear." And this is just a list—it's not even an attempt to actually regulate those chemicals. (The fact that we don't regulate many known carcinogens is a separate and even more deeply screwed up issue.)Environmental health advocates are watching the Rehberg bill with concern. "Make no mistake. This isn't an effort to get a more accurate, scientifically-based answer on whether these chemicals are carcinogens," said Jason Rano, director of government affairs with the Environmental Working Group. "This is an effort to get a favorable outcome for industry's bottom line." The American Sustainable Business Council is also asking Congress to protect the report.Cancer has become a big issue in Rehberg's Senate race, with the congressman trading jabs with incumbent Democrat Jon Tester about support for cancer screenings. Rehberg's campaign touts him as a "strong supporter of funding for cancer research, control and prevention." But when it comes to the things that might cause cancer, he seems to be less enthusiastic.

Above: News footage from 2007 mixed with other video that documents the origin of the modern day Tea Party movement and those responsible for it. It was started in 2007 from the grassroots by Ron Paul supporters for his 2008 Presidential Campaign. After gaining momentum it was co-opted by certain Republicans with help from Fox News and other corporate entities. It's no longer the spontaneous decentralized movement that it once was though Ron Paul's message of limited government and a return to the Constitution is still at it's core.

After taking over the tea party, from Ron Paul, the Koch brother started using the Republicans "Southern Strategy" on a massive scale!

In other words...

The Republicans have been using the "Southern Strategy" (i.e. using racial prejudice to get support for elections). More recently (2009), the koch brothers and their allies funded a 'tea party' - a concept hijacked from Ron Paul's 2008 campaign.

1. "The tea partiers who are controlling the Republican party...their stated policy, publicly stated, is to do whatever it takes to see to it that Obama only serves one term," he tells Piers Morgan. "What underlines that? Screw the country, we're going to do whatever we can to get this black man out of here."He continues: "It is a racist thing." [i.e. The excess racism being used is influenced by The Koch Brothers]2. Is he disappointed in Pres. Obama? "Kind of, but I so understood that he was trying to hold onto his own promise," says Freeman. "He would be President of all the people." [i.e. Seeking to "Balance" the various schisms in US culture.]

After the Tea Party movement was created, the creators (Fox News) distanced itself acting as if the Tea Party sprang up 'on its own'...

About a minute in Newt Gingrich says that the tea party 'kinda sprang up on its own' (i.e. obvious lie). Then Stephen Colbert proves that the Tea Party was founded by anchors of Fox News and activism ideas even came from the GOP party chairmen. About 3 minutes into the video Stephen says a bunch of nonsense, mixing various eras from history together with fiction, this is making fun of Glenn Becks theories which tend to be historically and factually inaccurate.The idea that Obama must be beaten at all costs, whatever the consequences (which includes destroying the US economy and blaming it on Obama) is a result of the Koch Brothers war on Obama. This rhetoric is followed by close associates of Mitt Romney as well...

A New Hampshire surrogate for Mitt Romney said at a local political event that it's evident he will be the Republican

presidential nominee and suggested that "beliefs and principles" should not be the deciding factor for voters. State Sen. Gary Lambert said the most important thing is to nominate somebody who can defeat President Obama. "I don't get it. This is not about picking a favorite, it's not about picking someone you like," Lambert said. "It's not

about picking someone even with your own beliefs and principles. This is about picking a person who can beat Barack Obama,

Above: Fox News gets upset because a democrat used their own 'Nazi' tactic on them.
[After the killing of a judge that possibly was because of an individual inflamed by fundamentalist right wing rhetoric - the lessons of which were either not learned or simply ignored]. In the above video you will see why so many people believe Fox News anchors are always lying and not just following a script. The reality is that when you are surrounded by one kind of rhetoric all day, all week, all year then you begin to believe it. Bill O Reilly literally says Ariana Huffington and the Nazi do the same thing but seems to genuinely believe that he is NOT making a comparison between a 'liberal' and the 'Nazis'. [Was it any surprise that a judge was shot and another almost killed with this kind of rhetoric? I wasn't surprised by that, the Norway massacre, or the future massacres from both white, black, brown, yellow and purple polka dotted deranged individuals.]

Approx 1 minute into video: Anyone polluting your land or river (from upstream) should be able to be taken to court. Government can protect property through private property rights.... individuals have the right to recourse for In the following video you will see evidence of a factory polluting a stream and the extremely high incidence of cancer (including lung cancer in individuals who don't smoke) in the town nearby. Koch industries is supporting legislation to keep the EPA out (i.e. under the guise of 'government reduction'). By the way, note how many of the people supporting anti-people legislation (or anti-epa/government legislation) are getting money from the Kochs.

David Koch, one-half of the hugely influential Koch brothers duo, was not hard to miss on the floor of the Republican National Convention. A former collegiate basketball player at MIT, Koch stands six-foot-five, a giant among the party faithful. He looks identical in person to the hundreds of photos of him just a Google search away. Koch is one of New York's 95 delegates, all Romney supporters, and his presence here at the GOP convention has caused a stir. Koch's private dinner with Sen. Ron Johnson (R-Wis.) on Monday night ended up plastered all over Twitter, breeding rumors and speculation about who else dined with the man the liberal blogosphere loves to hate.Koch—who with his brother, Charles, and their extensive donor network, reportedly plans to direct some $400 million toward defeating President Obama in November—doesn't want the attention, and has tried to maintain a low profile in Tampa. I spotted him Tuesday afternoon on the convention floor looming over the rest of the crowd. He wore a navy suit, red-and-blue checkered tie, and a couple of fancy-looking convention passes sure to open doors that we reporters couldn't dream of entering. I chatted with Koch's three aides, and their messages were the same: No interviews, please. Mr. Koch wants to blend in, be just another delegate. One aide handed me and a few other reporters a printed-out statement with Koch Industries' logo. Here's what it said:

I'm deeply honored and humbled to be chosen as one of 95 delegates representing the great state of New York at the 2012 Republican National Convention.Americans, we all have a role to play in the Democratic process. From learning about the issues to participating in campaigns and voting, this is an opportunity—and a right—to help chart the course of the nation.The 2012 election may be the most important of our lifetimes. Profoundly different political philosophies are competing for our hearts and minds—and our votes. I have made no secret about which philosophy I support—the one that provides the greatest economic and personal freedom possible.

As I read the statement, a few pink-cheeked convention pages approached Koch, asked him for some life advice. "I'm the evil billionaire Koch brother," he quipped. "You're not afraid of me?" They weren't. As best as I could hear over the convention floor din, Koch, leaning down so the pages could hear, urged them to specialize in something they enjoyed and then work like hell to master their craft. Be the best at whatever it is you choose to do. The pages nodded in unison. Koch looked happy.The New York delegation was seated next to Wisconsin. That meant Koch and Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker, who famously took a call from a fake "David Koch" during Wisconsin's 2011 uprising ("thanks a million!"), stood just 10 or 15 feet apart for much of the evening. I never saw Koch or Walker exchange words. But then Walker is a celebrity at this convention, in demand from anyone within arm's reach.Koch's aides—Bill O'Reilly, a New York politico and Newsday columnist; Cristyne Nicholas, a Manhattan-based political communications consultant; and Nancy Pfotenhauer, a DC political strategist and former Koch Industries lobbyist who worked on John McCain's 2008 campaign—politely shielded their man from reporters. On stage, New Hampshire Gov. John Sununu took the mic to officially nominate Mitt Romney for the Republican presidential candidacy. Koch and his entourage took their seats with the rest of the New York delegation as each state proudly rattled off the number of delegates it had elected for Romney. (Delegates for other candidates, such as Rep. Ron Paul, were not recognized.) Then, when it was New York's turn, New York GOP chair Ed Cox stepped up to the mike and committed all 95 of New York's delegates to Romney.A pack of photographers encircled Cox as he stood at the New York delegation's designated microphone. Koch stood just behind Cox's left shoulder, clapping, smiling, and looking on approvingly like a proud brother or father. It was unclear whom the photographers cared about most—Cox or Koch.Next up was North Carolina. New York's delegates returned to their seats. But Koch lingered on his feet a bit longer, gazing toward the Frank Lloyd Wright-inspired convention stage. Then he, too, sat back down, just another face in the crowd.

Why is societal segregation not desired?(besides the obvious racism and equality reasons). Answer: Because it a more unified society will decrease violence and improve income equality and social mobility...

Segragation increases income inequality (which decreases level of democracy) - "The research, carried out by John Ermisch and Emilia Del Bono from the Institute for Social and Economic Research at Essex University, describes the different intakes as the "sorting of children into higher-performing and lower-performing schools". "We need to consider more radical options to create more balanced intakes in secondary schools and pilot innovative approaches to improve attainment for the poorest children," says the Sutton Trust chairman. "A failure to respond to this challenge is to condemn our disadvantaged youngsters - and our economy - to the bottom of the class in education's world order," said Sir Peter. Last year, a major report by former cabinet minister Alan Milburn warned that social mobility had slowed - and that the most sought-after professions were increasingly dominated by young people from affluent families."

Given the benefits... why would The Koch Brothers want to remove black kids from white kids in public schools?Answer: Their background and childhood experiences have created a lack of empathy that have made them dangerous to the very structures of society and democracy (especially to the principles of true republicanism)

A devil's bargain struck by scientists with government has led to the downgrading of basic researchThe view of science as the handmaiden of business threatens to discourage a generation of bright, creative people from pursuing science at all. After all, what is attractive about a poorly remunerated, uncertain life in science without the freedom to work on problems of your own choosing? The allure of Britain's overblown financial sector is likely to prove too great.

Meanwhile, the research councils continue to demand impact statementswith their grant applications, a requirement that can only reward the most mundane research or those scientists most able to dissemble or exaggerate. One research council, the Engineering and Physical Sciences Research Council, has largely stopped funding PhDs that are not associated with one of its Centres for Doctoral Training. The purpose of those centres? To "forge lasting links with industry".

I suspect that the letter sent to Times Higher Education on 5 January demanding root and branch reform of the EPSRC will be the first of many to hit the desks, then the wastepaper baskets, in Swindon this year.

Can basic research be saved from the tyranny of the profit motive? I doubt it. The coalition government has shown little inclination to question the science policies inherited from New Labour, and judging by the science minister's comments, he has little time for science for science's sake. The devil, it seems, will always get his due.

Science has never been more crucial to deciding the political issues facing the country. Yet science and scientists have less influence with the federal government than at any time since the Eisenhower administration. In the White House and Congress today, findings are reported in a politicized manner; spun or distorted to fit the speaker's agenda; or, when they're too inconvenient, ignored entirely. On a broad array of issues-stem cell research, climate change, missile defense, abstinence education, product safety, environmental regulation, and many others-the Bush administration's positions fly in the face of overwhelming scientific consensus. Federal science agencies, once fiercely independent under both Republican and Democratic presidents, are increasingly staffed by political appointees and fringe theorists who know industry lobbyists and evangelical activists far better than they know the science. This is not unique to the Bush administration, but it is largely a Republican phenomenon, born of a conservative dislike of environmental, health, and safety regulation, and at the extremes, of evolution and legalized abortion. In The Republican War on Science, Chris Mooney ties together the disparate strands of the attack on science into a compelling and frightening account of our government's increasing unwillingness to distinguish between legitimate research and ideologically driven pseudoscience.

Neil deGrasse Tyson uses a few maps to describe America's diminishing contributions to the world's scientific research:This short video captures part of a public presentation by Neil deGrasse Tyson about how the amount of peer-reviewed scientific research done in the U.S. has decreased since 2000, and increased in other places like Japan, China, and Europe. Very concerning (for America, anyway):

Quotes

"Make peace with the universe. Take joy in it. It will turn to gold. Resurrection will be now. Every moment, a new beauty." - Rumi

"God is a metaphor for that which transcends all levels of intellectual thought. It's as simple as that." - Joseph Campbell

"Naturally, every age thinks that all ages before it were prejudiced, and today we think this more than ever and are just as wrong as all previous ages that thought so. How often have we not seen the truth condemned! It is sad but unfortunately true that man learns nothing from history." - Carl Jung

"Of all the animosities which have existed among mankind, those which are caused by difference of sentiments in religion appear to be the most inveterate and distressing, and ought most to be deprecated. I was in hopes that the enlightened and liberal policy, which has marked the present age, would at least have reconciled Christians of every denomination so far that we should never again see the religious disputes carried to such a pitch as to endanger the peace of society." - George Washington

“If a problem is fixable, if a situation is such that you can do something about it, then there is no need to worry. If it's not fixable, then there is no help in worrying. There is no benefit in worrying whatsoever.” - Dalai Lama

“Be empty of worrying. Think of who created thought! Why do you stay in prison. When the door is so wide open?” ― Rumi